Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_Analysis_of_Flibble=E2=80=99s_Latest=3A_Detecting_v?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?s=2E_Simulating_Infinite_Recursion_ZFC?=
Date: Fri, 23 May 2025 20:07:19 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <100r648$bhcu$1@dont-email.me>
References: <Ms4XP.801347$BFJ.668081@fx13.ams4>
 <100kt0c$2tae8$3@dont-email.me> <100ktr7$2reaa$1@dont-email.me>
 <100l09v$2tae8$5@dont-email.me> <100l1ov$2ul3j$1@dont-email.me>
 <100l3jh$2v0e9$1@dont-email.me> <100l5c8$2ul3j$2@dont-email.me>
 <100l75g$2vpq3$1@dont-email.me> <100l887$2ul3i$2@dont-email.me>
 <100l9gh$30aak$1@dont-email.me> <100lc4o$30pgm$1@dont-email.me>
 <100ld1u$312c9$1@dont-email.me> <100lg4g$31jt3$1@dont-email.me>
 <100lkdv$32ib3$1@dont-email.me> <100lmif$32v06$1@dont-email.me>
 <100lmp3$32ven$1@dont-email.me> <100m319$38k55$2@dont-email.me>
 <87jz69xlpx.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <100mder$39slu$2@dont-email.me>
 <100oipb$3oge1$1@dont-email.me> <87a573xz0s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <875xhrtbpr.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <100r2mb$b2b1$1@dont-email.me>
 <100r4oq$b650$1@dont-email.me> <100r5bf$b5vm$4@dont-email.me>
 <100r5hn$b650$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 24 May 2025 03:07:20 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f513fb0f9fd54277dcf2467a994ccda0";
	logging-data="378270"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+gOY+1/jnC+WlKXDotcfNb"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3EAb8A9PftIdSpcmve4J2+IToMg=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250523-4, 5/23/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <100r5hn$b650$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5185

On 5/23/2025 7:57 PM, dbush wrote:
> On 5/23/2025 8:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/23/2025 7:44 PM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 5/23/2025 8:08 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> I suppose Ben quoted PO saying this, because PO /uses/ it to justify 
>>>> that a particular /halting/ computation will never halt,  PO's HHH 
>>>> simulates DDD (which halts) but before DDD halts it spots a pattern 
>>>> in the simulation, and announces non-halting.  "Eh?" I hear you say! 
>>>> PO claims HHH has "correctly determined that DDD would never halt" 
>>>> and so is correct to decide non-halting.  His "proof" that it is 
>>>> right to decide non-halting is his "when-so-ever.." quote, which 
>>>> broadly matches the Sipser quote.
>>>>
>>>> So the problem is not so much the "when-so-ever.." words themselves 
>>>> [or the words of Sipser's quote], but understanding how PO is so 
>>>> thoroughly misinterpreting/misapplying them.  How can PO believe HHH 
>>>> has "correctly determined the DDD will never halt" when DDD 
>>>> demonstrably halts?
>>>
>>> PO is working in a different model than the rest of us, though he 
>>> doesn't seem to understand that.
>>>
>>> To him, when function H is deciding on something, the implementation 
>>> of H is allowed to vary.  This results in functions that call H to 
>>> vary as a result.  To him, "DDD" is the same computation *regardless 
>>> of the implementation of HHH*, in cases where HHH is simulating DDD.
>>>
>>> This is essentially the mapping he's operating with:
>>>
>>> -----------------
>>> For a function X with input Y and a function H which simulates X:
>>> POH(H,X,Y)==1 if and only if there exists an implementation of H that 
>>> can simulate X(Y) to completion
>>> POH(H,X,Y)==0 if and only if there does not exist an implementation 
>>> of H that can simulate X(Y) to completion
>>> ----------------
>>>
>>> And a "decider" in his case maps the following subset:
>>>
>>> ----------------
>>> Hx is a PO-halt decider if and only if Hx(X,Y) == POH(Hx,X,Y)
>>> ----------------
>>>
>>> So given his rules, HHH1(DDD) is deciding on a algorithm while 
>>> HHH(DDD) is deciding on a C function whose subfunctions vary.
>>>
>>> This of course has nothing to do with the halting problem but he 
>>> doesn't get this.  After having spent 22 years on this, he'll come up 
>>> with any crazy justification to avoid admitting to himself that he 
>>> misunderstood the problem all this time.  He once said (and I don't 
>>> recall the exact wording) that "the directly executed D doesn't halt 
>>> even though it appears to".
>>
>> The problem is that people here are too stupid
>> to notice that HHH cannot report on the behavior
>> of its caller.
>>
>> int min()
>> {
>>    DD(); // HHH cannot report on the behavior of its caller.
>> }
>>
> 
> What about this?
> 

If you can't stay exactly on topic I am going to ignore
everything that you say.

HHH cannot report on the behavior of its caller AKA the
direct execution of DD().

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer